Peter Kuemmel wrote:
I am not really happy with this suggestion. At least for the cmake-build
we have the modul CPack, which does all what is needed for free.
Compare the creation of e.g. a binary rpm-package in cmake
cpack -G RPM --config CPackConfig.cmake
with the content of
"develo
> I am not really happy with this suggestion. At least for the cmake-build
> we have the modul CPack, which does all what is needed for free.
> Compare the creation of e.g. a binary rpm-package in cmake
> cpack -G RPM --config CPackConfig.cmake
> with the content of
> "development/ly
Am Sonntag 15 Februar 2009 schrieb Peter Kümmel:
> Ok I understand, cpack only creates packages for the build system: on
> Ubuntu I could not create rpm packages, only debs. But this deb package
> is a valid ubuntu package. Therefor we don't need additional spec files,
> cpack simply does not suppo
Kornel Benko wrote:
That is true. But where would you get the other CPackConfig.cmake-files?
Therefore we could write our own config file which then includes the
generated one.
And you had to know, what to write into such a file.
I attach such a file from my ubuntu system. As you can see, th
Grrrm this time with the attachment
Am Sonntag 15 Februar 2009 schrieb Kornel Benko:
> Am Sonntag 15 Februar 2009 schrieb Peter Kümmel:
> > Kornel Benko wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag 15 Februar 2009 schrieb Peter Kuemmel:
> > >>> I am not really happy with this suggestion. At least for the
> > >>>
Am Sonntag 15 Februar 2009 schrieb Peter Kümmel:
> Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Am Sonntag 15 Februar 2009 schrieb Peter Kuemmel:
> >>> I am not really happy with this suggestion. At least for the
> >>> cmake-build we have the modul CPack, which does all what is needed for
> >>> free. Compare the creati
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Kornel Benko wrote:
Am Sonntag 15 Februar 2009 schrieb Peter Kuemmel:
I am not really happy with this suggestion. At least for the
cmake-build
we have the modul CPack, which does all what is needed for free.
Compare the creation of e.g. a binary rpm-package in cmake
c
Kornel Benko wrote:
Am Sonntag 15 Februar 2009 schrieb Peter Kuemmel:
I am not really happy with this suggestion. At least for the cmake-build
we have the modul CPack, which does all what is needed for free.
Compare the creation of e.g. a binary rpm-package in cmake
cpack -G RPM --config C
Am Sonntag 15 Februar 2009 schrieb Peter Kuemmel:
> > I am not really happy with this suggestion. At least for the cmake-build
> > we have the modul CPack, which does all what is needed for free.
> > Compare the creation of e.g. a binary rpm-package in cmake
> > cpack -G RPM --config CPackCon
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:42:40 +0100
> Von: Kornel Benko
> An: lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
> Betreff: Re: cmake package install directory
> Am Samstag 14 Februar 2009 schrieb José Matos:
> > On Saturday 14 February 2009 14:11:
Am Samstag 14 Februar 2009 schrieb José Matos:
> On Saturday 14 February 2009 14:11:17 Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Thanx for your optimizm, so should we give up? :(
>
> The first question is "what is the problem we are trying to solve by
> building an rpm spec file?".
>
> I suggest that if there are pe
On Saturday 14 February 2009 14:11:17 Kornel Benko wrote:
> Thanx for your optimizm, so should we give up? :(
The first question is "what is the problem we are trying to solve by building
an rpm spec file?".
I suggest that if there are people who use this we can set a place where we
can collect
Am Samstag 14 Februar 2009 schrieb José Matos:
> On Saturday 14 February 2009 07:06:41 Kornel Benko wrote:
> > I am using the packages without problems. But we will have to test them
> > on machines which are not "fully packaged". There are no dependencies
> > configured yet.
>
> And here lies one
On Saturday 14 February 2009 07:06:41 Kornel Benko wrote:
> I am using the packages without problems. But we will have to test them on
> machines which are not "fully packaged". There are no dependencies
> configured yet.
And here lies one of the problems. Each class of distributions has a differe
Am Freitag 13 Februar 2009 schrieb Peter Kuemmel:
> > You are doing great work here Kornel. But as for the packaging, I don't
> > think rpm is so important, I'd rather think we are in greater need of:
>
> I really like to see the generation of deb and rpm files in a way I could
> reproduce with cma
> > If CMake is to supplant scons on the Windows side, Windows installer is
> > the top priority IMHO.
>
> I hope here for the experience of Peter, since I have _very_ little
> knowledge in this area.
I think I will be lost there without the help of Uwe or Joost.
Peter
--
Jetzt 1 Monat kosten
> You are doing great work here Kornel. But as for the packaging, I don't
> think rpm is so important, I'd rather think we are in greater need of:
I really like to see the generation of deb and rpm files in a way I could
reproduce with cmake. Are these packages usable for distributions?
> - t
Am 2009-02-13 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Am 2009-02-13 schrieb Kornel Benko:
> > ...
> >
> >> Does anyone know about some magic variable I could set before calling
> >>include(CPack)
> >> in CMakeLists.txt?
> >>
> >>
> > Ha, some "more googling" was needed, now
Kornel Benko wrote:
Am 2009-02-13 schrieb Kornel Benko:
...
Does anyone know about some magic variable I could set before calling
include(CPack)
in CMakeLists.txt?
Ha, some "more googling" was needed, now I found it.
We have to set
SET(CPACK_SET_DESTDIR "ON")
first.
So
Am 2009-02-13 schrieb Kornel Benko:
...
>
> Does anyone know about some magic variable I could set before calling
> include(CPack)
> in CMakeLists.txt?
>
Ha, some "more googling" was needed, now I found it.
We have to set
SET(CPACK_SET_DESTDIR "ON")
first.
So, now the packaging (at
Hi,
in our cmake build I try to use the module CPack to create packages.
All of following applies to rpm on linux, other packages may be ok. Debian will
be tested on weekend.
.
All but one part is making well.
This one part is:
I was unable to set the correct installation directory.
The p
21 matches
Mail list logo
